As the parent to a daughter and a son, and as a feminist, I will say that I do not value my daughter's future opportunities over my son's. I want him to be relieved of the enormous pressure we place on men and boys, just as much as I want her to be allowed to pursue the life path of her choice. I want them both to enjoy life, find love, and set up their own families in whatever way they choose. I want them to both be free to decide whether they want to have children or remain childless (though, I'll be honest, I would like to have some grandbabies someday). I want my son not to be berated for wearing pink or wanting to parent his children in a hands-on way. I want him to be able to speak what's on his mind and heart without being called a sissy.

The one who buggers a fire burns his penis-anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

It's entirely sufficient to say "both men and women are disadvantaged in different ways."

This is a sufficient statement. Adding "as many" makes it an opinion (which was your initial statement) - hence, worth nothing more than me indulging in you saying so. It is not evidence.

But, I'll bite...
How do you compare?
Literal number of disadvantages?
Or do certain disadvantages get more weight than others?

Globally, women's rights are still a huge barrier, compared to men.

For example, when the Women's Treaty by the UN was presented for consent, there were many countries (including "modern world" countries like USA, Australia, UK), that had reservations with consenting to follow said treaty as a whole.

I, in my post with the scale, was talking of societies, esp. with dominant patriarchal influence, when I made that comparison - which is legit.

Originally Posted by Qre:us

....in most socieities, esp. patriarchal societies, the lower side is.....

......women.

....thus feminism is born.

You are talking of a fraction of the global world, and a fraction of even that ("modern world"), where issues of men's rights, such as the links you provided, are recently significant, comparatively with women's issues.

Yet, in your response to me, you made a sweeping generalization in response to my ^ post, that men have "as many prejudice disadvantages". This is not true, at a global scale, thus, not an accurate statement.

Globally, women's rights and barriers to that trump issues with men's rights. This is why in UN's Millenium Goals, two of the eight goals directly relate to women, with the other goals indirectly doing so.

As long as there exists some amount of prejudice against males, anyone who truly stands for equality shouldn't call themselves a "feminist".

This is a ridiculous statement - as it assumes that a feminist, whose lens of focus is on women's issues, cannot still then ALSO stand up for men's issues, when it's a direct conflict of human rights.

Feminist does not mean anti-men. Or being blinded to issues that affect men.

Take, for example, this brilliant little piece:

Originally Posted by Ivy

As the parent to a daughter and a son, and as a feminist, I will say that I do not value my daughter's future opportunities over my son's. I want him to be relieved of the enormous pressure we place on men and boys, just as much as I want her to be allowed to pursue the life path of her choice. I want them both to enjoy life, find love, and set up their own families in whatever way they choose. I want them to both be free to decide whether they want to have children or remain childless (though, I'll be honest, I would like to have some grandbabies someday). I want my son not to be berated for wearing pink or wanting to parent his children in a hands-on way. I want him to be able to speak what's on his mind and heart without being called a sissy.

IMO the ideas and concepts of feminism benefit men as well as women. Allowing people to choose their own path rather than having their paths prescribed for them by their body parts benefits everyone. The reason it's called feminism is that historically women have been easily on the losing side of the equation. Things are closer to even now- I got to go to college, yay!- but it's still called feminism because the gains are relatively new and could be lost at any time, IMO. Still, it should (and does) benefit everyone for women to have agency and choice and power in a society, and for men to be allowed to choose to do traditionally female tasks. So I wouldn't be averse to changing the name of it. Just seems silly to focus on the name instead of looking at the ideas and concepts that underly it.

Actually, I think that in days of antiquity, men and women we're treated equally worse in differing factors, much like today.

Women were prevented from entering the workplace and forcibly marginalized to homemaker roles, while men were mercilessly subjected horrid working conditions and their lives/deaths generally underplayed (listing women/children as separate deaths when reporting an incident, rescuing women from dangerous situations with priority, etc...)

So, the strongest statement you could really make is that life in general is getting less shitty for everyone.
And that, I believe, is the truth.

However, in this instance, I do think the language is important.
People who call themselves "afrocentric" come off as more than a bit crass, possibly even racist in their own right, despite the fact that dark skinned minorities have historically been treated as inferiors in terms of class and societal standing. So, what makes "feminism" any different?
I can't think of a reason.

The Natural Woman will wipe your nose when you are allergic to something; and if it is her perfume you are allergic to, she will happily stop wearing it. If you are incapacitated, She will even go as far as picking the inside of your nose if you so desire. She enjoys going to the water park, where you and Her do naughty things in the wave pool where no one can see you. Not for the privacy, but for the stimulation of the waves; for She would not be ashamed to do the same things infront of the local theater or ontop of a large light fixture inside of a public area. The Natural Woman puts rare, tropical flora in Her hair, which is moisturized so that when you roll over onto her pillow, you feel as if you have been immersed in a wave of ecstasy. She will be your concubine through the most dire struggles, and when the time comes to dismiss Her forever, She holds you so dear that she is enthralled to leave you. She wears a mixture of coconut bras and seashells, which were forged by the ancient Hawaiian craftsmen and coveted by quartermasters world-round. When The Natural Woman farts, fragrant essences are expelled, which cause all life forms within the vicinity to be rejuvenated and polished as though they were from fresh from Eden. And instead of the normal sound that occurs when one releases gas, ambient sounds such as howler monkeys, crickets chirping, a cool breeze, or waterfall reverberates throughout the area and puts everyone at ease. Natural Woman only eats specific bodily fluids that come from you only, and she turns to stone momentarily if she eats anything else. If she eats someone else's bodily fluids, then she turns into a Gila Monster which is endangered, so she is bound to die lonely and covered with shingles. While Natural Woman has a sharp intellect, capable of perceiving and executing solutions to problems more readily than any other woman, she lacks self-awareness and therefore has no free will. In other words, she is like a puppy, which can be programed to do tasks in response to mere hand gesticulations.

But there are more important issues at hand, many which you listed yourself. recognizing the importance of language is necessary, and believe me it's a topic commonly explored in my classes and in academic feminism. but at some point it's cutting off your nose to spite the face..

IMO the ideas and concepts of feminism benefit men as well as women. Allowing people to choose their own path rather than having their paths prescribed for them by their body parts benefits everyone. The reason it's called feminism is that historically women have been easily on the losing side of the equation. Things are closer to even now- I got to go to college, yay!- but it's still called feminism because the gains are relatively new and could be lost at any time, IMO. Still, it should (and does) benefit everyone for women to have agency and choice and power in a society, and for men to be allowed to choose to do traditionally female tasks. So I wouldn't be averse to changing the name of it. Just seems silly to focus on the name instead of looking at the ideas and concepts that underly it.

For example, when the Women's Treaty by the UN was presented for consent, there were many countries (including "modern world" countries like USA, Australia, UK), that had reservations with consenting to follow said treaty as a whole.

The UN is a wholly laughable organization, I'm not really interested in discussing anything to do with it.

Originally Posted by Qre:us

I, in my post with the scale, was talking of [all] societies, esp. with dominant patriarchal influence, when I made that comparison - which is legit.

You are talking of a fraction of the global world, and a fraction of even that ("modern world"), where issues of men's rights, such as the links you provided, are significant, comparatively with women's issues.

Yet, in your response to me, you made a sweeping generalization that men has "as many prejudice disadvantages". This is not true, at a global scale.

Globally, women's rights and barriers to that trump issues with men's rights. This is why in UN's Millenium Goals, two of the eight goals directly relate to women, with the other goals indirectly doing so.

In third world countries, and even in the cultures of many so-called industrialized countries, violence, abuse, and mistreatment abound for all parties.
EVERYONE is treated poorly; the "international community" may simply happen to focus on women's rights for whatever reason.
The UN calls female genitile mutilation in the developing world a crime against humanity, meanwhile, circumcision is among the most common surgical procedures in the Western world... Somehow that causes cognitive dissonance for me.
So, if you have to fall back on the credentials of the UN to support your position, I suggest you have some thinking to do. =P

There is certainly a positive correlation between the general shittyness of a locale and the treatment of women therein. But, I remain unconvinced of any need to focus on women more than men.
In the United States, violent crime is biased to male victims by leaps and bounds; I would expect this trend is exaggerated in the undeveloped world, if anything, rather than reversed... Isn't that of concern?
Where's the UN resolution on male rights, might I ask?
(I can get the exact statistic for the above, if you care.)

Originally Posted by Qre:us

This is a ridiculous statement - as it assumes that a feminist, whose lens of focus is on women's issues, cannot still then ALSO stand up for men's issues, when it's a direct conflict of human rights.

I have my own issues with some of the many doctrines that fly the flag of feminism, but, I stand by my statement that the label is important, for separate reasons.
If somebody called themselves a "machoist" or "masculinist" or what have you, would you think of them much the same as you would a feminist?
Probably not...
What connotations would it bring to mind?